DPP chairperson Tsai Ing-wen's 2011 new year wish, 做一個相信土地與人民的政黨：寫給2011年的民進黨, to DPP members. It delivers her messages on two key issues: sovereignty and economics. Translated below with my highlights.

If any still has a doubt whether the DPP could stand up again, I would respond: the election results in the past two years already provided the answer. We have regained people's trust, which allows us to compete with the KMT head to head.

The DPP is the first ever political party that was spawn from this land (Taiwan) after the war (WWII). It aims at standing with the people since the day of establishment. Taiwan is a land that has suffered but is filled with hope. It is also a land that is encircled by super powers yet insists in being a master of her own. The people in this land share the common past as well as the future mission. Believing in the land, believing in the people and, especially, believing in the value that we represent for. These are the most important tasks for the DPP in 2011.

It has always been our belief that the land and the people are the root of a country. Therefore, when the ruling party (KMT) starts celebrating in hustle and bustle the 100-year anniversary (of the founding of ROC), we don't have to be cynical. Instead, we can take this chance to ask all the people in Taiwan to ponder and review what we have in mind about our country. In fact, instead of arguing for jargon like "the 1992 concensus", "one China, with each side having its own interpretation", "different interpretations for one-China", we would rather ask the people directly --- what is your country in your mind? Anybody can answer that quickly, be it Taiwan, be it Republic of China. Hidden behind both of these two answers is a simple idea - this land is my country. It does not belong to or equivalent to the People Republic of China across the strait.

Therefore, I have been puzzling why president Ma kept asking questions (about the fabricated "1992 consensus" saying that Taiwan and China have reached a consensus on the sovereignty of Taiwan), as though he is not quite sure about the current and future status of this country. In reality, we have this land, we have 23 million people, and we have a democratic system that is a fruit of long and slow innovation. To a president, it should have been clear that wherever your voters are, wherever your country is.

The biggest difference between the KMT and our party is that the KMT argues "Taiwan can't exist without the ROC", but we argues "the ROC can't exist without Taiwan." Simply put, the KMT worships "the regime and the ruler," yet we believe in "the land and the people." The line that makes the difference is that we insists Taiwan is our priority, and we believe that we are on the side with the majority of people.

The ROC government came to Taiwan In 1949 and became part of the history of this land. We understand and respect it as a historical fact. We also believe that the only way to change this sixty some year system is by way of a democratic process. But what the people really need at this moment is not the confrontation deadlock on nationality ideology between the green and blue camps; nor is to spend large amount of budgets to create an identity that is so detached from the land. What the people expect is that all people, no matter green or blue, have the free will to create and choose our future without a premise of certain political frame.

For most of the people in Taiwan, the 2010 was still a painstaking year. The GDP resumed growing, the consumption was more active. But at the same time, the living costs increased without corresponding increases on salary and income. It signifies a new model of our economic development, a model in which the wealth distribution is unbalanced. Therefore, while some enjoy the fruit of economic recovery happily, others can only share tears with their kids in the cold winter. Developing with this model, the gap between the rich and the poor, as well as the gap between the city and the country side, will be further enlarged.

Therefore, another mission of the DPP's in 2011 is to offer a new economic idea different from that of the KMT's in order to resist the trend of increasing wealth gap that is deteriorating the society. For 2011, another mission of the DPP is to present an economic approach that is different from that of the KMT, to resist the worsening wealth gap in our society. When the KMT is satisfied with the number of the GDP growth, we want to walk into the lives of the people, to care for their jobs and incomes. No matter how high the apparent number is, it is empty as long as the people can't feel it. The DPP wants to to be affected by the people's experiences, to establish a secure future for the majority who don't have neither the economic capital nor the social resources. The DPP is for those people, so we have to remind ourselves everyday: if the DPP is not there for them, who will care for their future? This is the original intention of our party, and is the value we have to guard now.

The 2010 has passed. We walked through it with appreciation, appreciating the support, the criticism, the lenience and the expectation that the people gave. The DPP should not let the people wait for too long. We need to put on full gear for what needs to be done and what touches the people.

Update: Thanks mike (see comment section) for pointing one flaw of my translation, as corrected in the two paragraphs up.

7
comments:

Look, I despise the KMT at least as much as you do, but when a leader of the DPP such as Tsai Ing-wen says things like this...

"...the trend of increasing wealth gap that is deteriorating the society."

... it makes me despair on several counts.

First, the meaning of that sort of soundbite is so vague that nobody but her can know precisely what dynamic she is referring to. I tend toward the opinion, which I briefly mentioned on J.Michael Cole's place, that deliberately sloppy and evasive use of language like this is a very bad example to set for the younger generation, since with it, she fails to demonstrate the value of a clear, crisp grasp of concepts and their contextual parameters to understanding social problems.

Second, the content of the remark, such as it is, is redolent of the mistaken tendency often found on the political left to reject the principles on which a free market society must stand. Inequality in wealth would be better expressed as "differences in wealth" since this reflects its' derivation from the fact that people are different from each other in all kinds of ways, e.g. virtue, vice, luck, intelligence etc.

Third, the "deterioration" or "corrosion" of society (i.e. social relations that people freely establish among one another) is not principally caused by differences in wealth at all, but rather by coercion since it is violence, or the threat of violence, that not only entrenches advantage for some at the expense of others, but which also distorts and mangles the processes by which people freely associate with and disassociate from one another.

Until the DPP, like all modern leftist political parties, understand this, they are part of the problem, not the solution.

Please consider alternative points of view, such as that of Beth Haynes - a physician in California who is a web-acquaintance of mine - she blogs very intelligently at "Wealth Is Not The Problem": http://wealthisnottheproblem.blogspot.com

The article is my translation, so the wording is my responsibility. There's in fact an official version that I wasn't aware of when I did the translation, in which the paragraph in question is translated as:

For 2011, another mission of the DPP is to present an economic approach that is different from that of the KMT, to resist the worsening wealth gap in our society.

Comparing to that, and referring back to the original text written in Chinese, it is obvious that my translation is bad. The word "deteriorating," if to be used at all, should have been referring to the gap, not the society.

I've made corrections, and also, put the link to the official piece on top. Thanks, man.

Hi mike, The DPP didn't make that statement you were targeting at. Your criticism against the DPP was solely based on a wrong translation I made. What should I say, other than the admission of mistake, about criticism against nothingness ?

================================="Your criticism against the DPP was solely based on a wrong translation I made."

Not so, observe:

Here is the correct translation you presented to me:

"For 2011, another mission of the DPP is to present an economic approach that is different from that of the KMT, to resist the worsening wealth gap in our society."

My first point about lack of clarity in Tsai's language applies to this very predicate of "resisting" a "worsening wealth gap" irrespective of whether your earlier relative clause should apply or not. It is not clear from "worsening wealth gap" for example whether she is referring to the wealthier cross-section of Taiwanese society becoming richer at a faster rate than that by which the less wealthy can attain, or whether for example, she is referring to the poorest becoming poorer relative either to one or more wealthier cross-sections of society, or relative to some other standard, for example access to the essentials for surviving. And all of that is to leave entirely open the question of what she means by "resisting".

My second point that inequalities in wealth would be better conceived as "differences in wealth" and that political opposition to such differences per se (as implied by her use of "resisting") is misguided - this second point also still applies, since the correct translation you present still contains the phrase "worsening wealth gap", rather than for example "growing wealth gap" or "widening wealth gap".

And yet I think my third point, although you revoke the term "deterioration", also still applies, since clearly the concept of deterioration (or at least something very much like it) is implied by the term "worsening" - if the wealth gap is "worsening" (as distinct from "growing") then surely what is meant is that there are negative social consequences to this, yes? And isn't that, broadly, the meaning of the term "deterioration"?

You are under no obligation to consider the criticisms I am putting to you if you do not want to, but in pointing to translation errors, are you not simply trying to evade my criticisms of the DPP (presumably because it makes you uncomfortable)?